Tulsi Gabbard Pushes Bill to Block Transgender Girls from Women's Sports
By: James Walker (MSN)
Good. It's time to squelch this abuse. I knew I liked her for more than her looks........she's smart. Always thought she didn't get enough credit in the primaries.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Tulsi Gabbard Pushes Bill to Block Transgender Girls from Women's Sports
Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has introduced a bill that would use Title IX rules to block transgender girls from competing in women's sports programs and activities run by federally funded schools.
Releasing a statement on the "Protect Women's Sports Act" bill Thursday, Rep. Gabbard said states were "misinterpreting" Title IX provisions against sex-based discrimination to create "undue hardship" for female athletes.
The Hawaii representative added that her bill, co-sponsored by the Republican Rep. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, sought to protect the "original intent" of Title IX protections, which she claimed were based on biological sex.
"Title IX is being weakened by some states who are misinterpreting Title IX, creating uncertainty, undue hardship and lost opportunities for female athletes," Gabbard said in a statement. "Our legislation protects Title IX's original intent which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes based on sex."
The former Democratic primary candidate added that it was "critical" that Title IX ensured that women and girls were allowed to "compete and excel on a level playing field" in sports teams and contests.
Her Republican co-sponsor Rep. Mullin made similar arguments as the pair introduced the bill, arguing that it would "safeguard" the integrity of women's sports contests.
"Allowing biological males to compete in women's sports diminishes that equality and takes away from the original intent of Title IX," he said. "As the father of three girls involved in athletics, I want them to be able to compete on a level playing field."
According to bill text shared by the KITV4 reporter Tom George on social media, the "Protect Women's Sports Act" would make it a violation of Title IX protections in the Education Amendments of 1972 for federally funded schools to allow people born as male to compete in women's sports programs and activities.
Newsweek has contacted Rep. Gabbard's office for further details and comment. This article will be updated with any response.
Republican senators proposed a similar law that would have made it a Title IX violation to allow transgender women to compete in women's sports at federally funded schools.
The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act was co-sponsored by Sens. Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and three other GOP lawmakers in late September. At the time of writing, the bill is still stuck with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee.
Releasing a statement at the time, Sen. Loeffler said: "Title IX established a fair and equal chance for women and girls to compete, and sports should be no exception.
"As someone who learned invaluable life lessons and built confidence playing sports throughout my life, I'm proud to lead this legislation to ensure girls of all ages can enjoy those same opportunities."
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
495 visitors
This should be applauded coast to coast.
I think it's a good idea
I'm totally for it. There is a pending lawsuit going on in Conn. No female can beat transgender chromosomes.
I gotta say I agree with this one. Reminds me of Eric Cartman at the special olympics.
Good for her.
I totally agree.
It must be very depressing to young girl athletes who face defeat by men competing as women.
I've especially noticed this in one particular sport ... track ... although I'm sure there are more.
One case from 2019 ...
The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act was co-sponsored by Sens. Kelly Loeffler of Georgia
Let's get that out to the voters down there!
If M to F transgenders are continually allowed to compete in women's sports, it then becomes nearly pointless for women to participate in any sport at all... how fair is that? From a physiological standpoint, those born male, with XY chromosomes, are stronger, leaner / more muscle mass, faster, and taller [generally speaking]. How many F to M transgenders have decided to compete in men's sports?
I think transgender women should be treated the same in competitive sports as athletes that use steroids. Frankly, I don't have a problem with athletes that do steroids as long as they are in their own "Dope League" where anyone caught doping can go compete with other dopers. Perhaps they should call it "Enhanced Sports" and have their own network which would air baseball, football, track & field, boxing, weight lifting, choreographed wrestling and other sports dominated by chemically enhanced or otherwise altered humans. While I have no problem with transgender women being who they want to be, the fact that they have had muscles grown with testosterone while other women in competitions have not should obviously disqualify them.
Only a jerk would want to compete at an uneven playing level. Where is the joy of winning and competing against those who can't possibly reach the same level?
Gabbard's proposal is necessary and she is brave to do it given the current climate. She is already being accused of being anti-trans . But such an accusation is unfair and deflects from the core issue. This is not about approval or disapproval of being trans.
I coached and managed females sports programs for 18 years, so I'm an advocate for them. I also have a few trans friends and so I want to advocate for them, but you can't always have everything you want.
Trans males in female sports is not a particularly big or wide spread problem - nor will it ever be - but I would say that in almost all cases, where the athlete has had time to develop as male, they have exactly the kind of unfair advantage we were seeking to avoid with the creation of female-specific programs.
I feel for some of these people who are transitioning but still want to play sports. I do. But segregation of most sports into male and female is not about dysphoria or gender identity. It's all about the way the body develops based on biological sex and how that impacts the ability to compete.
Some male advantages can be diminished or even eliminated with surgeries and hormone therapy, but not all. You can decrease muscle mass, but that is not the only advantage males have over females. Their hearts and lungs develop differently, so they process oxygen better and pump blood more efficiently. They even create more red blood cells.
Their hips develop so that the legs grow more vertically, making them more efficient runners. They develop larger hands and feet. Their bones are longer and larger, relative to overall size, allowing for greater leverage. Ligaments and tendons are stronger. So even if you reduce muscle mass through hormones, the muscles that remain will function more efficiently on the frame they are attached to.
We have seen the result in trans male sprinters running away from the biological females they compete against. It defeats the entire purpose of female sports programs.
100% spot on.
This is an error by me. I should have written “trans females” as that signifies that one is transitioning to being female.
No transitions to being either make or female. All they are are men impersonating women and women disguised as men.
To be truly transexual, you have undergone major surgery to remove the male of female parts and a big part of the systems that provide their sex hormones, which they then get replaced with the sexual reassignment. No one is impersonating other than trannies. At best you could say, that their chromosomes would not reflect who they were born as.
This bothers you? Why? They are not doing anything to you.
Wrong
Suppose someone who goes through such an operation later changes their mind?
That’s interesting. Is it even possible?
Not really
And my point is perfectly made by Mr Mash in post # 7.2.7
Then they are frauds and not portraying themselves as they truly are. Chromosome XX is and always will be female. Chromosomes XY is and always be male. Digging a hole or building a pole between one legs does not change that. [Deleted]
Where did you read that 'story'?
Pubertal blockers are reversible.
That’s why these changes should never ever be done to a minor. Regardless who thinks they want it. It should be an adult decision.
Then you don't have a point. As I said, pubertal blockers are reversible. In short, his 'story' is bullshit.
Me?
In short, his 'story' is bullshit.
"bullshit?" Thank you for another fact laden rebuttal.
Yes you.
Since it is a rebuttal to a comment void of facts, no worries.
I note that you didn't ask MM to support his claim but you supported it wholeheartedly. So since YOU made the assertion, YOU have the burden of proof.
It's all about me?
I'm flattered.
Actually, it's all about your inability to prove your posit. It's become an MO.
Which illustrates a lack of credibility.
In this case Mash did it eloquently for me.
Which illustrates a lack of credibility.
Well since Mash has made no effort whatsoever to support his claim, your definition of 'eloquently' must be 'not at all'. Now you're using Mash's 'exit' as an excuse for your inability to support your posit. Bad form.
What do you suppose that is for a 11 year old goose? Seriously, get educated.
Well then all you or MM has to do is provide a LINK that shows that the kid in his scenario was treated by Dr. Olson. Please proceed.
Where the fuck do you think I got Dr. Olson's name goose? Your link doesn't say anything about MM's 11 year old boy or his 18 year old being her patient. LINK?
Well said!
One of the first transgenders was Christine Jorgenson (sp) who was also a pro tennis player. I still remember the uproar when she was allowed to play because she was born male.
No worries. In her 4 terms, not one bill that Gabbard has sponsored has even passed the House.
Ya, that partisan House of Nancy Pelosi. That will change a bit in January when moderates will have a voice.
That would make sense if Gabbard was a Republican, she isn't.
But hey maybe you're trying to make the argument that she's a moderate, though I doubt the fact that she's pro-choice and supports Medicare for All supports that concept.
Gabbard's first SEVEN years in Congress were while Boehner was Speaker, so unless you claim that it was GOP partisanship, your posit looks to be moot when it comes to Gabbard's UTTER ineffectiveness.
She is a moderate Democrat. Have you ever heard of them?
But hey maybe you're trying to make the argument that she's a moderate, though I doubt the fact that she's pro-choice and supports Medicare for All supports that concept.
Are you saying that all democrats should blindly back transgender issues?
Point?
Yes.
I said what I meant, ever heard of that?
Even if true, that wouldn't really tell us much. And, in any event, it's not true.
Overall, according to GovTrack, Gabbards has been the primary sponsor of 3 bills that were enacted into law .
Each year, several thousand examples of various kinds of legislation are introduced, but only about 1-3% actually become a law .
Several laws are passed by being incorporated into larger laws, and of course, repealing a law also requires a law.
In the current Congress, Gabbards has sponsored one piece of legislation that actually became law - HR 663: Burn Pits Accountability Act.
1 may not sound like a lot, but the most anyone has this session is 7 . One other person has 6. Four people have 4. Seven people have 3. About 3 dozen have 2, and quite a few have 1. Many more have 0. And, of course, Gabbards took a lot of time off to run for president, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect more.
Keep in mind, this is the legislation sponsored by Gabbards that not only passed the House, but the Senate as well, and were ultimately signed by the president into law. This is a much harder standard than simply passing the House, as you said.
So actually, 1 stand alone bill, my bad. The others were incorporated into other BILLS.
Especially since it's over an 8 year period, NOT just this session.
That ONE bill is the only one bill that passed in the House too. ONE BILL in 8 YEARS.
Again, no worries.
That is not a distinction that matters, as far as I can see. Why do you think it does? You seem to be trying to imply that Gabbards has not been a good or effective member of Congress. This kind of thing doesn't prove that one way or the other. Why are you trying to discredit her?
What worry are you talking about?
I would think that one bill passed in 8 years is self explanatory.
Based on her record, she hasn't been.
You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree.
Her record does that.
No worries that she can get a bill passed before her ass is out of Congress.
Well gee Tex, Tacos argument was that Gabbard was on par with the majority in Congress, NOT that how many bill she passed was irrelevant.
Voting 'present' is hardly a badge of courage. Even in her committee she isn't viewed as someone who does her homework, asks poignant questions or speaks truth to power.
Gabbard is a lightweight.
If it were, I wouldn't have asked. Will you answer? I have already explained why I don't see it as significant of anything. You have yet to give a reason why you think it's relevant to the discussion.
Which aspect of it? The number of passed bills sponsored? I have already shown you how few bills get passed into law and the small number that each member sponsors. Do you think that sponsoring bills is the only thing a good member of Congress might do?
It's a curious metric. Representative Nita Lowery (D-NY) has sponsored the most bills that have been signed into law this session. Does that make her the best member of the House? Maybe they are awful laws. Or maybe she has nothing else to do and she's just good at crafting bills. I don't know what the reason is, but I can imagine a lot of things.
But by the same metric, Paul Gosar (R-AZ) would be the second best member of the House. He sponsored 6 bills that made it to law this session. Are you a fan of his?
I'm prepared to hear you explain your opinion. Simply asserting that something is self-evident isn't very persuasive.
Why might you or someone else be worried about this bill? Do you oppose it? If so, what are your problems with it? Would you eliminate it altogether? Or are there constructive changes you would suggest?
I didn't make any argument about Gabbard.
READ MORE CAREFULLY Tex.
It is a distinction that matters, as far as I can see.
All of it. See 9.2.5
BTFW, you keep talking about this session and I have already stated that I am talking about her ENTIRE Congressional career.
'No worries' is a common saying.
Your entire 9.2 argument is about comparing other records to Gabbard's. Just stop.
All I am asking is that you explain why.
I gave information on both, but you still haven't explained why it's even important.
I understand that, but it's a saying with meaning and implies that someone has a concern. I have read a lot of responses to this seed, and most people seem to support her proposal, so I don't know why you would say "no worries." Again, all I am asking is that you explain your comment.
That comment is not an argument for or against Gabbard. Rather, it refuted your incorrect claim that she had sponsored no bills that passed the House. I also questioned the significance of your claim even if it had been true. I'm just trying to get you to clarify your point and explain its relevance to the seed.
I have already explained why I see it as significant.
As I stated, Gabbard's career and session record is the same. ONE BILL.
I gave the affirmative explanation contrasting your negative one.
That's a limited interpretation. I suggest you expand your understanding of the saying.
Bullshit. If you would have stopped @ citing the ONE BILL she passed, that would be true, you didn't. You went on to compare Gabbard's record to others and offered an excuse of her presidential run for this sessions numbers.
Of course, NONE of that explains all of her other inadequacies, which I cited in my previous comments.
What part of my answer in 9.2.3 didn't you understand?
Where? Copy and paste the words you think are an explanation.
It's more than that, as I showed, but I still don't see why it matters.
I gave a negative explanation? Where?
Wow, Dulay! Is that satire? I have very politely tried to do exactly that multiple times, now, by asking you to explain and clarify your remarks, but you keep deflecting.
I see no reason for you to be hostile.
Yes, of course, for context. To show that a member of Congress only sponsoring a few bills that make it to law (or even none) is the norm, and not an exception. In fact, for the first few terms a rep serves, I wouldn't really expect any. Just to even sponsor one bill into law in a given session puts a lawmaker at or above the median.
So even if sponsorship of successful bills was a useful metric for judging a member of Congress (and you still haven't explained why this is so), the comparison with the rest of Congress shows that Gabbard is no worse than about average.
It's just context. I'm not trying to argue that Gabbard is a great representative. I'm just using the only metric cited to show that she's no worse than a typical representative.
I must have missed that. Where is that?
I have asked you several times to explain the significance of her sponsorship record to this seed. All you said in 9.2.3 was that it was self-explanatory. That's not an explanation.
Honestly, I don't think I care anymore. You obviously have some chip on your shoulder for Gabbard, which is fine. I'm not on a mission to defend her. I'm more interested in the bill than the person proposing it anyway.
The same place you explained yours.
Which, the ONE BILL or her whole career record?
Everywhere.
Really Tacos? Are you claiming that you need ME to explain the many uses of the term 'no worries'? Seriously, it's not deflecting to refuse to acquiesce and hold your hand. Go look that shit up for yourself.
Bullshit.
All you have to do is read the comment you quoted to see that I am asking you to clarify your own remarks, not anyone else's.
Maybe it's time for you to just admit that you came to here to say something shitty about Tulsi Gabbard and nothing about the proposed bill. Why? No reason, apparently. You have been offered ample opportunity and invitation to carry on a civil conversation on the topic and you just continue to play this game.
Well this otherwise good story got all fucked up. Gonna lock it. Four days later, when participants have had their say previously, there is no need for further commentary. Thanks to most for participating.